On April 9, 2006 the New York Time Magazine had an article that presented a homicide as an abortion in the case of Carmen Climaco in El Salvador. It stated that the pregnancy was aborted (sic) at 18 weeks. She was serving a 30 year sentence which of course painted her in a bad light in the fallen world. In my opinion that would have been correct, but this posting is about how the New York Times misled their readers in presenting a homicide as an abortion in order to stir up anti-pro life sentiment and promote the culture of death.Life Site News reported on November 28 relating to this New York Times article that the 'grey lady' was caught in a big lie in order to promote child murder. The headline read, "New York Times Caught in Abortion-Promoting Whopper — Infanticide Portrayed as Abortion." Reader complaints began pouring to the New York Times.Basically what happened was that the defenseless baby was choked to death after being born and medical documents have stated thusly and confirmed by a court ruling in the case. The New York Times called this a 'third ruling' and considered it politicized in El Salvador in order to protect pro-life laws. The condescension is amazing. Here we have liberal elites looking down their nose at a third world country in Central America to justify their lies to promote death.

Why do you not understand what I (Jesus) say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My Word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I (Jesus) tell the Truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? If I tell the Truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear Them is that you are not of God."

--The Holy Gospel of St. John 8:43-47

When liberals in America, especially on the losing end of a debate, attempt to promote their views (the culture of death), they resort to name calling and lies. Why do people and entities such as the New York Times continue with lies? Why do they want to they want to kill unborn children? Defenseless, unborn children?

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Then He will say to those at His left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to Thee?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to Me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

--Holy Gospel of St. Matthew 25:40-46

Liberals, the New York Times, Christian Socialists, and the culture of death proponents will continue down their path towards perdition unless they repent now.After an investigation by Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, turned up evidence that showed the article to be grossly misleading to the editors of the damning piece written by Jack Hitt, here was their response:

The magazine’s failure to check the court ruling was then compounded for me (Byron Calame) by the handling of reader complaints about the issue. The initial complaints triggered a public defense of the article by two assistant managing editors before the court ruling had even been translated into English or Mr. Hitt had finished checking various sources in El Salvador. After being queried by the office of the publisher about a possible error, Craig Whitney, who is also the paper’s standards editor, drafted a response that was approved by Gerald Marzorati, who is also the editor of the magazine. It was forwarded on Dec. 1 to the office of the publisher, which began sending it to complaining readers.The response said that while the “fair and dispassionate” story noted Ms. Climaco’s conviction of aggravated homicide, the article “concluded that it was more likely that she had had an illegal abortion.” The response ended by stating, “We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts as reported in our article, which was not part of any campaign to promote abortion.”After the English translation of the court ruling became available on Dec. 8, I asked Mr. Marzorati if he continued to have “no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts” in the article. His e-mail response seemed to ignore the ready availability of the court document containing the findings from the trial before the three-judge panel and its sentencing decision. He referred to it as the “third ruling,” since the trial is the third step in the judicial process.
The article was “as accurate as it could have been at the time it was written,” Mr. Marzorati wrote to me. “I also think that if the author and we editors knew of the
contents of that third ruling, we would have qualified what we said about Ms. Climaco. Which is NOT to say that I simply accept the third ruling as ‘true’; El Salvador’s judicial system is terribly politicized.”
I asked Mr. Whitney if he intended to suggest that the office of the publisher bring the court’s findings to the attention of those readers who received the “no reason to doubt” response, or that a correction be published. The latest word from the standards editor: “No, I’m not ready to do that, nor to order up a correction or Editors’ Note at this point.”

To read this investigate piece click here.To read the Life Site News piece revealing the hypocrisy of it all click here.The American Thinker has an excellent analysis of the NY Times lie, click here.